Back
SANGEETA CHANDRA, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I
Maiku – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.-This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 27.11.1991 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1990 arising out of Case Crime No. 151 of 1990, under Sections 377, 302, 201 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C.''), Police Station Safipur, District Unnao, whereby the appellants, Maiku and Manzoor alias Mansoor have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The appellant No. 1, Maiku has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 377 I.P.C. The appellant No. 2, Manzoor alias Mansoor has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 377 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The appellant No. 2, Manzoor alias Mansoor has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 403 I.P.C.
2. At the outset it is relevant to mention that this appeal was filed by the appellants, Maiku and Manzoor alias Mansoor. Howe
The judgment underscores the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence for a conviction.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the last seen theory and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of the death.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence or suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
